Newsweek to the US.

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
What if they were correct, they reported OUR f$ck-up; how's that their fault? Try this instead, instead of blamming the press for revealing our mistakes, how about we not make them to begin with?

Did you even read the article?

"We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the magazine's May 23 issue, out Sunday.

"What if they were correct?" If they were correct I'd not have posted. They admitted they weren't correct. What more proof do you want other than their own words? You have tunnel vision.

Yes I read the article, but I should've explicitly stated (as opposed to insinuating) that I question the legitimacy of the retraction. I could EASILY see flushing the book down the crapper happening; we don't give a f#ck about Islam and it obviously riles the detainees up so why WOULDN'T it be used as tool to influence them with? To me it is naive to think we wouldn't.

Unfortunately, this action (alleged) became a tiger's tail and now has escalated to the point of national security; Afghanistan, not to mention half a dozen other sthan's, is on the verge of declaring all out war against us. Oops, maybe that wasn't such a good idea after all...

Think of the ultimatum we we're given; "give us those responsible for the incident within three days or we will have Jihad against you." Not a whole hell of allot of wiggle room on that one. Here are our options:

1.) Do nothing. Don't cough up our service members, allow the sthan's to Jihad, and lose any modicum of progress made in Afghanistan over the last 3 years in less than 3 days and destabilize the ME even more than it already is, perhaps catastrophically so?

2.) Give in to their demands. Allow fellow Americans to be undoubtedly mutilated and killed (sick f*cks we're talking about here after all) for their "transgressions" and allow the Islamic world a public victory against us. This would likely empower the little bastards and compel even more Muslims to fight the infidels.

or

3.) Have the outfit responsible for reporting the article retract it under the pretense of "national security" (which it most obviously is at this point), trounce over the first amendment, save the lives of fellow Americans, and hopefully prevent another Jihad.


hmmmm.... which option should we choose here?

So now I ask you, do YOU think it likely that the retraction is legitimate?

Yeah... Just like they retracted the prisoner abuse stories that caused as much uproar... Go ahead with your conspiracy theories and I guess we need to create a "Liberal Media Apologist" title to some people.

Perhaps you don't realize Abu Garhib pales in comparison to this...

But of course you're right, it's silly of me to think Newsweek would've retracted the article in the interest of national security.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
This qualifies you for the "I'm a National Enquirer Editor Wannabe... Oh, is that a UFO?" award. That is all I can say about your post.

But having some sources and publishing this story is nothing like that.

If you use "questionable" sources just for the sake of an article then you are not a true journalist.

It depends on how questionable they are.

Round and round... it depends on what the KNOWN reaction to a story will be as to how questionable you should allow them to be.... This can be twisted in a thousand ways but fact is this. They published this story KNOWING that the islam law states that if you desecrate the Quran it is punishable by death. They published this story KNOWING that the source was questionable. They Published this story to fuel anti administration emotions. They Published this story to sell copies not provide news.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Unfortunately, this action (alleged) became a tiger's tail and now has escalated to the point of national security; Afghanistan, not to mention half a dozen other sthan's, is on the verge of declaring all out war against us. Oops, maybe that wasn't such a good idea after all...

Think of the ultimatum we we're given; "give us those responsible for the incident within three days or we will have Jihad against you." Not a whole hell of allot of wiggle room on that one. Here are our options:

If they want to declare war due to some allegations then that's their own problem. They'll be slaughtered. However, I doubt that the governments would want to declare war. In addition, that ultimatum was made from some religious clerics in one area, not a government.

Ok, they'll be slaughtered, this may be true, but do you really think the US wants the region destablized further by having to fight a much larger war than we bargained for?

And as for the clerics, don't be surprised to find out that they weild much more influence over the populations of some of these countries than the governments do.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
This qualifies you for the "I'm a National Enquirer Editor Wannabe... Oh, is that a UFO?" award. That is all I can say about your post.

But having some sources and publishing this story is nothing like that.

If you use "questionable" sources just for the sake of an article then you are not a true journalist.

It depends on how questionable they are.

Round and round... it depends on what the KNOWN reaction to a story will be as to how questionable you should allow them to be.... This can be twisted in a thousand ways but fact is this. They published this story KNOWING that the islam law states that if you desecrate the Quran it is punishable by death. They published this story KNOWING that the source was questionable. They Published this story to fuel anti administration emotions. They Published this story to sell copies not provide news.

Of course they want to sell copies, but lots of news is made off of sources. Otherwise there wouldn't be much news.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
This qualifies you for the "I'm a National Enquirer Editor Wannabe... Oh, is that a UFO?" award. That is all I can say about your post.

But having some sources and publishing this story is nothing like that.

If you use "questionable" sources just for the sake of an article then you are not a true journalist.

It depends on how questionable they are.

Round and round... it depends on what the KNOWN reaction to a story will be as to how questionable you should allow them to be.... This can be twisted in a thousand ways but fact is this. They published this story KNOWING that the islam law states that if you desecrate the Quran it is punishable by death. They published this story KNOWING that the source was questionable. They Published this story to fuel anti administration emotions. They Published this story to sell copies not provide news.

And? It's perfectly within their right to do so.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
What if they were correct, they reported OUR f$ck-up; how's that their fault? Try this instead, instead of blamming the press for revealing our mistakes, how about we not make them to begin with?

Did you even read the article?

"We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the magazine's May 23 issue, out Sunday.

"What if they were correct?" If they were correct I'd not have posted. They admitted they weren't correct. What more proof do you want other than their own words? You have tunnel vision.

Yes I read the article, but I should've explicitly stated (as opposed to insinuating) that I question the legitimacy of the retraction. I could EASILY see flushing the book down the crapper happening; we don't give a f#ck about Islam and it obviously riles the detainees up so why WOULDN'T it be used as tool to influence them with? To me it is naive to think we wouldn't.

Unfortunately, this action (alleged) became a tiger's tail and now has escalated to the point of national security; Afghanistan, not to mention half a dozen other sthan's, is on the verge of declaring all out war against us. Oops, maybe that wasn't such a good idea after all...

Think of the ultimatum we we're given; "give us those responsible for the incident within three days or we will have Jihad against you." Not a whole hell of allot of wiggle room on that one. Here are our options:

1.) Do nothing. Don't cough up our service members, allow the sthan's to Jihad, and lose any modicum of progress made in Afghanistan over the last 3 years in less than 3 days and destabilize the ME even more than it already is, perhaps catastrophically so?

2.) Give in to their demands. Allow fellow Americans to be undoubtedly mutilated and killed (sick f*cks we're talking about here after all) for their "transgressions" and allow the Islamic world a public victory against us. This would likely empower the little bastards and compel even more Muslims to fight the infidels.

or

3.) Have the outfit responsible for reporting the article retract it under the pretense of "national security" (which it most obviously is at this point), trounce over the first amendment, save the lives of fellow Americans, and hopefully prevent another Jihad.


hmmmm.... which option should we choose here?

So now I ask you, do YOU think it likely that the retraction is legitimate?

Yeah... Just like they retracted the prisoner abuse stories that caused as much uproar... Go ahead with your conspiracy theories and I guess we need to create a "Liberal Media Apologist" title to some people.

Perhaps you don't realize Abu Garhib pales in comparison to this...

But of course you're right, it's silly of me to think Newsweek would've retracted the article in the interest of national security.

It's not silly... It's pathetically optomistic of you. They absolutely knew what they were doing when they published this. They absolutely knew what the reaction would be. If they had solid sources then they should have stuck to the story.

Also... This doesn't pale in comparison. There were at least 2 hostages killed in retaliation to the AG incident. This is the exact same but with AG, there was firm proof as to what happened and why. I don't think anyone should have lost their lives for either story.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Unfortunately, this action (alleged) became a tiger's tail and now has escalated to the point of national security; Afghanistan, not to mention half a dozen other sthan's, is on the verge of declaring all out war against us. Oops, maybe that wasn't such a good idea after all...

Think of the ultimatum we we're given; "give us those responsible for the incident within three days or we will have Jihad against you." Not a whole hell of allot of wiggle room on that one. Here are our options:

If they want to declare war due to some allegations then that's their own problem. They'll be slaughtered. However, I doubt that the governments would want to declare war. In addition, that ultimatum was made from some religious clerics in one area, not a government.

Ok, they'll be slaughtered, this may be true, but do you really think the US wants the region destablized further by having to fight a much larger war than we bargained for?

And as for the clerics, don't be surprised to find out that they weild much more influence over the populations of some of these countries than the governments do.

If the people are so stupid to declare war against an allegation (and a minor one at that) then I wouldn't really care. They would deserve it for being so stupid.

 

[SuperTool]

Looks like Newsweek is bending to the administration pressure and backing away from the truth they initially reported. Or maybe they feel that lies are prefferable to truth that gets people killed.

 

[jjzelinski]

RM, that's sort of missing the point. Looking at the situation from a POV that's advantageous to our interests, destabalizing the ME like this would be anything but in our best interest. Sure, our borders will remain intact, but if the ME tanks then so does our economy.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
RM, that's sort of missing the point. Looking at the situation from a POV that's advantageous to our interests, destabalizing the ME like this would be anything but in our best interest. Sure, our borders will remain intact, but if the ME tanks then so does our economy.

Yes, but your scenario is a no win situation for the US. The US should not be responsible for merely allegations that are now retracted.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
RM, that's sort of missing the point. Looking at the situation from a POV that's advantageous to our interests, destabalizing the ME like this would be anything but in our best interest. Sure, our borders will remain intact, but if the ME tanks then so does our economy.

Yes, but your scenario is a no win situation for the US. The US should not be responsible for merely allegations that are now retracted.

That's exactly right, it is a no-win situation. Now it's a matter of damage control.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
What if they were correct, they reported OUR f$ck-up; how's that their fault? Try this instead, instead of blamming the press for revealing our mistakes, how about we not make them to begin with?

Did you even read the article?

"We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the magazine's May 23 issue, out Sunday.

"What if they were correct?" If they were correct I'd not have posted. They admitted they weren't correct. What more proof do you want other than their own words? You have tunnel vision.

Yes I read the article, but I should've explicitly stated (as opposed to insinuating) that I question the legitimacy of the retraction. I could EASILY see flushing the book down the crapper happening; we don't give a f#ck about Islam and it obviously riles the detainees up so why WOULDN'T it be used as tool to influence them with? To me it is naive to think we wouldn't.

Unfortunately, this action (alleged) became a tiger's tail and now has escalated to the point of national security; Afghanistan, not to mention half a dozen other sthan's, is on the verge of declaring all out war against us. Oops, maybe that wasn't such a good idea after all...

Think of the ultimatum we we're given; "give us those responsible for the incident within three days or we will have Jihad against you." Not a whole hell of allot of wiggle room on that one. Here are our options:

1.) Do nothing. Don't cough up our service members, allow the sthan's to Jihad, and lose any modicum of progress made in Afghanistan over the last 3 years in less than 3 days and destabilize the ME even more than it already is, perhaps catastrophically so?

2.) Give in to their demands. Allow fellow Americans to be undoubtedly mutilated and killed (sick f*cks we're talking about here after all) for their "transgressions" and allow the Islamic world a public victory against us. This would likely empower the little bastards and compel even more Muslims to fight the infidels.

or

3.) Have the outfit responsible for reporting the article retract it under the pretense of "national security" (which it most obviously is at this point), trounce over the first amendment, save the lives of fellow Americans, and hopefully prevent another Jihad.


hmmmm.... which option should we choose here?

So now I ask you, do YOU think it likely that the retraction is legitimate?

Yeah... Just like they retracted the prisoner abuse stories that caused as much uproar... Go ahead with your conspiracy theories and I guess we need to create a "Liberal Media Apologist" title to some people.

Perhaps you don't realize Abu Garhib pales in comparison to this...

But of course you're right, it's silly of me to think Newsweek would've retracted the article in the interest of national security.

It's not silly... It's pathetically optomistic of you. They absolutely knew what they were doing when they published this. They absolutely knew what the reaction would be. If they had solid sources then they should have stuck to the story.

Also... This doesn't pale in comparison. There were at least 2 hostages killed in retaliation to the AG incident. This is the exact same but with AG, there was firm proof as to what happened and why. I don't think anyone should have lost their lives for either story.

Sorry missed this one.

You really think Newsweek was hoping for Jihad? OK

And yeah, I think it does pale in comparison. The AG aroused hostilities to the point of murderous abudictions, the koran-in-the-crapper has the potential to unhinge the ENTIRE AREA OF THE PLANET into a holy war. Which seems more severe to you?

 

[Infohawk]

It's hard to be outraged. So one thing that didn't happen was reported. What about all the things that don't happen that aren't reported. You think Abu Graib is the extent of US misbehavior?

But I guess the lesson to be learned is that if the media makes one mistake and neocons are vindicated, the neocons must be right about everything else.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
This "one" mistake got at least 4 people killed.

Given your anger at Newsweek for this, one can only assume you are positively seething in rage at the Bush administration. Their "mistakes" have cost tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Oopsie, our bad, tee hee.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Can someone explain how 'Newsweek' is a major publication read religiously by
the people who live in those countries ?

I doubt that even as may as ten people are even aware that 'Newsweek' exists over there.

 

[BBond]

People are throwing around the word "retraction" when there was no retraction.

Who were the sources for the Newsweek story?

Although other major news organizations had aired charges of Qur'an desecration based only on the testimony of detainees, we believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence. So we published the item.

And does Newsweek have a high readership in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

After several days, newspapers in Pakistan and Afghanistan began running accounts of our story.

These charges along with the general climate in the Middle East are a lethal combination that could easily lead to widespread revolt across the Muslim world. This administration will do anything to defuse this crisis and Newsweek knwos it.

Just one more example of the demise of the free press and the willingness of a supposedly free people to allow it to happen.

Newsweek didn't make up the story. Their source was a U.S. government official and a U.S. government investigation. If anyone should apologize it is the U.S. government whose officials started this whole ball rolling.

Don't blame the messenger.

The Editor's Desk

 

[BBond]

For a brilliant analysis read this.

 

[Moonbeam]

My instant thought, when I heard about the retraction was that Rove must have made a call.

Our country today is full of the kind of morons who would torture people by violating their deepest principles in the name of national security and then do everything in their power to hide it when the consequences of knowledge of those actions leak out to the other side.

In this case there are yet no pictures so the facts, if it is indeed fact, may be managed and contained.

The lesson, of course, is that you don't elect morons to power. But that is possible only when you are not a moron yourself.

Everything Hitler did was for National Security and it got him a bullet in the head.

 

[BBond]

Newsweek has, in other words, confirmed that the source did read a US government account of the desecration of the Koran.

Nor is this the first such indication of this sort of incident. On August 18, 2004, ANSA, the Italian news agency, wrote of the families of detainees from Bahrain at Guantanamo:


"The families' anxiety grew after the publication of a report by the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR), which contained information about tortures and maltreatment of prisoners. The report, based on testimony by three former Guantanamo prisoners,
Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmad, defines as brutal the methods of the U.S. jailers. According to the report, prisoners were brutally beaten and compelled to watch other prisoners sodomising each other by force. The 150-page document says reptiles were taken to the cells in an attempt to force prisoner confessions, while the Koran was thrown into the toilets before the eyes of the detained."

Newsweek has, in other words, confirmed that the source did read a US government account of the desecration of the Koran.

Nor is this the first such indication of this sort of incident. On August 18, 2004, ANSA, the Italian news agency, wrote of the families of detainees from Bahrain at Guantanamo:


"The families' anxiety grew after the publication of a report by the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR), which contained information about tortures and maltreatment of prisoners. The report, based on testimony by three former Guantanamo prisoners,
Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmad, defines as brutal the methods of the U.S. jailers. According to the report, prisoners were brutally beaten and compelled to watch other prisoners sodomising each other by force. The 150-page document says reptiles were taken to the cells in an attempt to force prisoner confessions, while the Koran was thrown into the toilets before the eyes of the detained."

A reader with military experience in this area wrote me his own experience, with the Bible being trashed in a similar way. I was able to google this reader in such a way as to compare autobiographical statements and dates (stripped from the below) to the Web record, and they all check out. Even the history of attitudes, as revealed in letters to the editor, are confirmatory. So I'm sure of the authenticity of these comments.



"I'm a former US [military officer], and had the 'pleasure' of attending SERE school--Search, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape.

The course I attended . . . [had] a mock POW camp, where we had a chance to be prisoners for 2-3 days. The camp is also used as a training tool for CI [counter-intelligence], interrogators, etc for those running the camp.

One of the most memorable parts of the camp experience was when one of the camp leaders trashed a Bible on the ground, kicking it around, etc. It was a crushing blow, even though this was just a school.

I have no doubt the stories about trashing the Koran are true.

I'm sure you must also realize that Gitmo must be being used as a "laboratory" for all these psychological manipulation techniques by the CI guys. Absolutely sickening . . .

1. My gut feeling tells me that the SERE camps were 'laboratories' and part of the training program for military counter-intelligence and interrogator personnel. I heard this anecdotally as far as the training goes, but have not dug into it. This is pretty much common sense.

2. Looking at Gitmo in the 'big picture', you have to wonder why it is still in operation though they know so many are innocent of major charges. A look through history at the various 'experimentation' programs of the DOD gives a ready answer. The camp provides a major opportunity to expose a population to various psychological control techniques. Look at some of the stuff that has become public, and this becomes even more apparent. Especially the sensory deprivation--not only sleep, but there are the photos of inmates in gas masks or sight/hearing/smell deprivation setups. There has already been voluminous research into sensory deprivation, and it seems this is another good opportunity for more. One note is that sensory deprivation is used to some degree in military basic training and to a greater sense in the advanced training courses--Rangers, SEALS, etc. All part of the 'breakdown' process before recruits are 'remade'.

3. This incident with the bible trashing. Camp was [in the late 1990s]. It was towards the end of the camp experience, which was 2-3 days of captivity. We were penned in concrete cell blocks about 4' x 4' x 4'--told to kneel, but allowed to squat or sit. There was no door, just a flap that could be let down if it was too cold outside (which it was--actually light snow fell). Each trainee was interrogated to some extent, all experienced some physical interrogation such as pushing, shoving, getting slammed against a wall (usually a large metal sheet set up so that it would not seriously injure trainees) with some actually water-boarded (not me).

The bible trashing was done by one of the top-ranked leaders of the camp, who was always giving us speeches--sort of 'making it real' so to speak, because it is a pretty contrived environment. But by the end it almost seemed real. Guards spoke English with a Russian accent, wore Russian-looking uniforms. So the bible trashing happened when this guy had us all in the courtyard sitting for one of his speeches. They were tempting us with a big pot of soup that was boiling--we were all starving from a few days of chow deprivation. He brought out the bible and started going off on it verbally--how it was worthless, we were forsaken by this God, etc. Then he threw it on the ground and kicked it around. It was definitely the climax of his speech. Then he kicked over the soup pot, and threw us back in the cells. Big climax. And psychologically it was crushing and heartbreaking, and then we were left isolated to contemplate this.

And all of these moods and thoughts were created in this fake camp--just imagine how it is for these guys at Gitmo.

So many have tried to commit suicide....by now they all must have some serious psychological problems. This is without a doubt torture. Premeditated, planned....a fine lot of criminals we have in charge of the USA these days. Gitmo is so Orwellian--so Room 101. They are playing on the deepest feelings and fears."



This informed former officer has suggested the real reason for which some in the Pentagon are so angry about the Newsweek story. It may well so focus international outrage on Guantanamo that Rumsfeld will lose his little psych lab.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
What if they were correct, they reported OUR f$ck-up; how's that their fault? Try this instead, instead of blamming the press for revealing our mistakes, how about we not make them to begin with?

That doesn't make sense since they're retracting their article. Right now the only thing we know is that only Newsweek made a mistake in this one case.

This "one" mistake got at least 4 people killed.

Too bad. Newsweek should not be responsible for the extremism and insanity in other people. Even though what they reported was incorrect, they probably didn't think it would cause such a reaction. They should not be responsible that some psychopaths will riot and murder at anything remotely wrong to them.

It would be like me saying 'Hello' and then angering 400 people just for that. In other words, it's ridiculous.

In war time and when there are U.S. troops that can be killed as a result of what you publish, newsweek should eb responsible for double and triple checking sources.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
What if they were correct, they reported OUR f$ck-up; how's that their fault? Try this instead, instead of blamming the press for revealing our mistakes, how about we not make them to begin with?

That doesn't make sense since they're retracting their article. Right now the only thing we know is that only Newsweek made a mistake in this one case.

This "one" mistake got at least 4 people killed.

Too bad. Newsweek should not be responsible for the extremism and insanity in other people. Even though what they reported was incorrect, they probably didn't think it would cause such a reaction. They should not be responsible that some psychopaths will riot and murder at anything remotely wrong to them.

It would be like me saying 'Hello' and then angering 400 people just for that. In other words, it's ridiculous.

In war time and when there are U.S. troops that can be killed as a result of what you publish, newsweek should eb responsible for double and triple checking sources.

Get real. If we are committing torture against other human beings for any sick excuse at all, we need this info to come to light and the perps brought to trial. Evil is always done on the pretext that it is good. The likelihood is high that this is a false retraction and that the facts were originally thoroughly checked.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I am not trying to go all conspiracy theory on this thread, but is there ANY (however remote) that Newsweek was pressured into retracting the article because it relied on questionable sources?

OMG... You are seriously saying that it is OK to report something that you aren't 100% sure of and that you haven't 100% checked out your sources?

Are you even reading what he wrote?

He said -- IS THERE any possiblilty that Newsweek was FORCED TO RETRACT A TRUE STORY

What legitimate news organization would do such a thing? It would go against everything they stand for.

I think again we have another over-zealous article in which fact checking was thrown out the door to sell a few copies and possibly smear the administration.

It is a shame what the media is doing to themselves. Eventually nobody will care what they have to say.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: rudder

In war time and when there are U.S. troops that can be killed as a result of what you publish, newsweek should be responsible for double and triple checking sources.

Oh come on.

Are you willing to say these people weren't burning American Flags or desicrating (sp?)Bibles before they heard about this Newsweek article?

I don't care if they did a cargo plane drop of the article saying someone desicrated the Quaran, that doesn't give the primates any reason to kill because of it.

Freedom and Freedom of the Press means just that, anything less is unacceptabe.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I am not trying to go all conspiracy theory on this thread, but is there ANY (however remote) that Newsweek was pressured into retracting the article because it relied on questionable sources?

OMG... You are seriously saying that it is OK to report something that you aren't 100% sure of and that you haven't 100% checked out your sources?

Are you even reading what he wrote?

He said -- IS THERE any possiblilty that Newsweek was FORCED TO RETRACT A TRUE STORY

What legitimate news organization would do such a thing? It would go against everything they stand for.

I think again we have another over-zealous article in which fact checking was thrown out the door to sell a few copies and possibly smear the administration.

It is a shame what the media is doing to themselves. Eventually nobody will care what they have to say.

Who are you trying to kid? Newsweek got their info from a "senior" administration official who claimed it came from the Guantenamo investigation.

It isn't the news media doing this to themselves. It's the Bush administration doing this to all of us.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Can someone explain how 'Newsweek' is a major publication read religiously by
the people who live in those countries ?

I doubt that even as may as ten people are even aware that 'Newsweek' exists over there.

It probably doesnt but arab networks will pickup the story and put their spin on the story to incite these things. This is one of the reasons why many in this country believe the media needs to watch itself over here because the stuff they publish can be fuel for the fire over there. And it doesnt help when the crap is apparently false because that will never make it out over there.